tv [untitled] July 17, 2014 11:00am-11:31am PDT
>> hi my name is chris esketa and i am a small business owner here in san francisco and i am opening a restaurant next door to tender, and i think that this is exactly what the neighborhood needs, i think that we will bring quality individuals to the area. and more importantly, a quality establishment, and care about the neighborhood and we really hope to be a part of revitalizing the neighborhood and i think that there, you know, there should be no issues. and you know, obviously there is a quality establishments and these other kind of places that are going to get the people that normally would not come to the area because there is maybe nothing of that caliber or quality into the neighborhood. and it is also going to attract other businesses, and other small business owners to want to be a part of the neighborhood. and hopefully it makes everything better. >> thank you sir, next speaker?
>> good morning. >> my name is mickey and i will be working along with miriam and i met her in 1991 when i moved to san francisco and she is very committed to keeping her business and her family in the city, and it is an amazing place to be. and i think that what is really something mostly besides working with her, was the concept of the keg beer and i have been the general wine buyer in the city for 20 years and the main complaint when i worked in the south of market, was the bottles of recycling and that problem was being relieved and i think that alone is a great reason to welcome her and her passion to the neighborhood. >> any other member of the public who has not spoken? seeing none, public comment is closed. again, i want to thank all of the members of the community who have come out and spoken.
and i guess that i will speak from my perspective and i understand the concerns about the number of alcohol establishments that are going into this neighborhood and i think that calls for a different discussion and larger discussion. and i would say that, i have been impressed by the presentation from the applicant and i do believe that this applicant is committed to being a good neighbor to being a responsible member of this community. and for me, the fact that the district supervisor and the police department and members of this community have come forward, and speaks to that. and so i believe that in the context of what is permissible here that we have someone who is going to make sure that you know, she does right, not only for her business but also for the community, and i don't have a problem with people working with consultants if that means that it is a good out come in
terms of community out reach and so i am certainly prepared to move forward with the recommendation and i do want to thank the members of the community for bringing out this issue of the fact that independent of what happens here, we need to make sure that there are other establishments in this neighborhood and especially for families with kids, and i know that supervisor kim is working very hard to make that happen and so colleagues? any comments or thoughts? >> supervisor mar? >> i wanted to say that i totally agree with my colleague, supervisor campos and i want to make a motion that we move this with a positive recommendation as a committee report for consideration of the july 22, board meeting. >> great if we could take that without objection, thank you very much. >> if you could call the next item.
>> item number threehearing to consider that the transfer of a type 21 off-sale general license from 601 van ness avenue to 1 jefferson street (district 3), to john kevlin for garfield beach cvs, lcc, and longs drug stores california, llc, dba cvs, will serve the public convenience or necessity of the city and county of san francisco. >> great if we could hear from the applicant, either john kevlin or mark? >> supervisors, thank you so much for your time this morning, i am genius with the law firm and mr. kevin is out of the country at the moment, this is an 8,000 square foot cvs on the corner of jefferson and it is under construction right now and schedule to be completed in the fall and this is a convenience store only and not a pharmacy here. and one interesting thing about this item the alcohol use itself, the 8,000 square feet is the total retail area, and only 250 feet will be devoted to alcohol and it is a small component of the retail for this location. the license as would mention is being transferred from another location on polk street and not an increase in the district three number of licenses. our out reach consisted of
fisherman's wharf and working closely with the merchant's association. and there are no residents nearby and no opposition to that we are aware of and we are in agreement with all of the conditions that have been proposed and happy to answer any questions that you have. >> thank you. >> supervisor mar? has a question? >> i just wanted to ask him, you mentioned that there is no pharmacy at this cvs, how many in the city don't have pharmacies? >> this actually might be the only one, i think that most of them are certainly and its business is a pharmacy based plan and this one does not have pharmacy. >> and i appreciate all of the materials that we have received on this site, and is there a 7 eleven around the corner and a bullet point between the cvs and the 7-eleven could you explain that. >> i think that the cvs is a larger and i think that we are familiar with how a 7-eleven works and they are kind of both convenience stores, for sure, i think that the offerings that a cvs brings to the neighborhood
you know is highly trafficked pedestrian area and lots of tourist and goods that would not be available at a 7-eleven, 7-eleven is quick for candy and food and a lot more available and convenience goods and travelers will appreciate. >> what a perfect spot by the pier 39 parking garage. >> it does not get better than that, thanks. >> thanks, why don't we hear from santos of the alu. >> the alu and investigational reading regarding garfield beach cvs llc doing business as cvs farmly 10391, one jefferson street. on behalf of the garfield beach cvs has filed an application with the california department of alcoholic beverage control, seeking the type 21 license for the number one jefferson street.
cvs has set the goal of enhancing the over all convenience of adding the sales of wines and beers and spirit and for the purpose of this hearing, the california department of alcoholic beverage control, seeks a determination from the board of supervisors as to the approval or the denial, of this license. in respect to the police calls for service, from april of 2013 to april of 2014 there have been zero calls in respect to the police reports from april, 2013, to april, 2014, there have been zero reports as well. the premises is located in the plot 110. the plot has 136 police reports recorded for the year 2013. and the applicant premises is located in a high crime area. and the premises is located in census tract, 101.00. and the population for this
tract is 3739. on sale license, authorized by the census track are 12 and the active on sale licenses are 71. off sale licenses authorized by the census track are three. and the active off sale licenses are 13. and the applicant premises is currently located in an undue con concentrated area. there are zero letters of protest received by the california department of alcoholic beverage control. and in respect to the letters of support, there have been none recorded with the department of alcoholic beverage control. >> the dean approved the off sale use and the regulations shall apply. you recommend the approval with the following conditions attached. number one, sales of alcoholic
beverages shall be permitted only during the hours of 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. and number two, no one shall be served with an alcoholic content greater than 15 percent by volume except for dinner lines, which have been aged two years or more. and number three, the alcoholic beverages shall not be sold in containers, or bottles 375 mill litter and under. and number four, no malt alcoholic beverages shall be sold. and number five, the petitioner shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area adjacent to the premises or which they have control. number six, loitering, defined as to stand idly about and go aimlessly without any business, prohibited to the property, under the control of the license, as particular on the applicant's 257 form and lastly number seven, the exterior of
the premises shall be equipped with the lighting of sufficient power to eliminate and make easily decertainable the appearance and the conduct of all persons on the premises and additionally, it shad not disturb the use of any neighbor residents. >> thank you. >> colleagues any comments or questions? >> seeing none, why don't we go to public comment? >> thank you. >> i have not received any speaker cards, but if there it any member of the public that would like to speak, come forward. >> thank you. >> good morning, good morning, supervisors. i would ask that you approve this. because i think that cvs is a great neighbor, and none unlike walgreens ha has a pharmacy in it and has a liquor license on powell street. but i do ask you to approve cvs getting their liquor license,
they are a great neighbor, and i like the stores a lot, thanks. >> thank you very much. >> is there any... >> okay, mr. nolty. >> michael nolty and i will start with ditto, but actually if you recall that i had a large issue around walgreens and i think that sometimes there was a point when david chiu was going to actually start the legislation to ban additional alcohol permits to pharmacies. but then, again, you have to also look at the big picture and that is we are losing our small pharmacies and then we have the big pharmacies and of course, obviously, walgreens has become the biggest on every corner kind of a thing at least in the district six. and i think that it is great to see a competitor come along and
knock them down a couple of pegs and i have to be supportive of cvs and i think that they listened to us a couple of times and on the suter store they chose to do what they did there and when they did there and cvs decided for do their store at on 7th and market, they chose not to put alcohol and again they listened to the community and they started to understand, the community issues. so, i think when corporations understand or listens to the community and acts like a community partner, then they should get the support of the community when they don't listen to the community and all that they care about is money, and then, i think that i don't know if you are aware of it, but walgreens was actually not going by the regulations and they were passed when they were on the powell street address, and they actually were breaking the conditions that they asked for that we had to go to a
administrative hearing. and you know, so, they could say one thing and of course they can do what they want because they are a big corporate entity. and there is no checks and balances. so, hopefully, cvs will continue to be a more of a role model in the community. and listen to us and when they place the new stores into the san francisco. and so, i appreciate them, and doing what they are doing, thank you. >> thank you very much. >> and any other member of the public, seeing none, public comment is closed. >> colleagues, do we have a motion on this item? >> so we have a motion by supervisor yee to move this item forward as a committee report if we could take that without objection. >> without objection, thank you very much. >> if we could now go to item
number 4. >>ordinance amending the administrative code to expand the category of jail inmates eligible for the home detention program; and authorizing the sheriff to implement an electronic monitoring program to pretrial detainees being held in lieu of bai >> great, thank you. >> and now we are going to hear from the sheriff, and i also want to note that our under sheriff is here as well. sheriff? good morning. >> good morning, mr. chair, and supervisors, and good morning, thank you. and i'm ross rucameri, for the city and county of san francisco. and we were also joined here by the san francisco adult probation department in the san francisco public defender in support of this legislation. and this legislation really is simple, the state of california in statute under 1203.016, enables all county sheriff's departments to enact an
electronic monitoring program also known as home detention for sentenced inmates and with the advent of ab 109, a new statute in the state rtion known as 1203.018, creates the ability for county sheriffs to create a electronic monitoring program for pretrial detainees and i don't think that it is uncommon knowledge that throughout the state and this country, a high percentage of detainees and those within the jail, county jail systems a high percentage are pretrial. and we believe that if we in the sheriff's department comes into contact with information for a unit that has served minimally 30 days with us or a felony, or someone in a felony that served 60 days with us that provides us the knowledge
to potentially reconsider if they should be in custody with us. because they could not afford bail, or because of other circumstances that would not necessarily prohibit them from being electronic monitoring. all of this legislation does, is requires us to inform the district attorney's office, so that together, we go before the judge, and that that new evidence or information be presented for the judge. and since a high percentage of people, that are pretrial, in our jail system, are there for a variety of reasons, but in the particular one, because of how cost prohibitive, bail is. and then we believe that of using a very method cal approach as we use the assessments in our incusdy and post custody programming and that gives us enough to alert all members, in particular the
da as indicated that we would do in the first iteration and then to go before the judge and let the judge decide and that is because someone spends time with us and both are the sworn staff and the program mat i can staff and works closely with those people that are under our supervisor vision, there may be knowledge that may not have come to the floor previously that we may want to see returned and brought to the attention of the courts and the judges themselves, keeping public safety. keeping it without compromise of why we are advocating this legislation and while providing a system that is built on a level of fairness. and so that we are not inaccurately encars rating somebody, simply because they cannot afford the alternative
of not being incarcerated because of our very strong pretrial deversion programs that exist, and our very strong and robust electronic monitoring program that exists, we feel the confidence through our law enforcement infrastructure and our deputy sheriffs and our program supervisors, that that only reinforces our commitment of enhancing public safety, and a compassionate alternative that allows us to fortified the alternatives to the incarceration without compromise to the public safety. and in 2013, we had one of our largest electronic monitoring years in the history of the sheriff's department and 359 people were put on em with a success completing rate of 93 percent and i can tell you when, we contrast and compare with the other 57 counties in the state of california, we have something to be proud of. and so, as long as we keep that
line of communication, open, and with the courts with the da, and somebody requires a public defense, public defense in the adult probation department and i think that this is the next step of where the home detention and electronic monitoring will go and maybe there will be people here that may have concerns, or i would like to reserve the right to address those concerns but i just want to also again, mind you the adult probation and public defenders offices here in support and the other people here too. >> if i may, chair, i know that you know, this item came before it is previously and at that point, there were concerns that were raised that were really appreciated the fact that you were willing to hold off, on the item at that point to work with the folks that raised those concerns. i have to say that for me, this is a very important item, because we have, and i have
actually chaired meetings and certainly a hearing to talk about whether or not there is a need for a new jail and either i am still trying to figure out where i am on that, but one of the things that was very clear in that discussion, is that without in any way compromising public safety, we want your office to continue to explore alternatives to incarceration, and i think that this is consist he want with that and in line with that objective. and so, i am very appreciative of that, and i think that it shows that your department is listening and continues to work of mike hennessee and supervisor mar you have a question? >> i wanted to thank the sheriff for working with the district attorney for the different concerns that they had raised before and i also wanted to say that i am
appreciative that you are emphasizing that this is about minimum security and low level, inmates. and it is equitable because it is many people that cannot afford the bail and so it is really helping many inmates that probably if they had the funds could be released on bail, but could you talk more about you mentioned that this is no risk at all to the public safety at all? >> well, i will never make a promise that it is not, no-risk, and i think that that would be presumption so i would never say that but what i feel confident in is the infrastructure that has been created by the san francisco sheriff's department to fortify that safety, and it minimizing the risk. and we are thankfully, our department is well seasoned and well tested. and of our administrators here, and our sworn that over seing, this particular unit, and we
are proud, of the statistics that have demonstrated our success and efficacy and so again, we were walking that fine line, that while there may be a debate, whether to replace the downtown jail or not, and then let's diagnostickly, and scientifically, add evidence to the debate, on what we are able to do to seek effective alternatives to incarceration, not what rhetoric drives the discussion. and if, in fact, the people from the disadvantaged and under served communities, often find themselves in incarcerated because they cannot afford bail and this takes a pro-active approach in entering that question and to your question, supervisor mar about any i think, any concern about somebody being at risk, we would assure that concern and if the district attorney or the adult probation department, or
the member of public that they are concerned, because this person that maybe put forth as a candidate for reconsideration for the electronic monitoring, we are not going to make that judgment, unlaterally and we never would do that and the whole point of this legislation, is designed a communication vehicle, that allows us to report to the da, so that have together, we go in front of the courts, and the courts and the judge, should be the determinant and not us. >> supervisor yee? >> they chose to discontinue it
and what is the difference here in what you are suggesting here in san francisco verses la's program? and why would we be successful verses not being successful? that is such a softball question and i get to boast about how great our department is and how well things are working in san francisco at the expense of los angeles but i will not go there and we are two book ends in the state, and by fact, los angeles is the largest county jail system in the country, and then we are, in the north side of the state, one of the most under crowded jail systems in the country, we really are apples and oranges and i think that because of the good work we are focusing on
reducing recidivism and alternative to incarceration and we see a kind of chemistry that i think that is really unique to san francisco's criminal justice system and i don't think that los angeles has that. >> on what will happen if when we are in this program and they actually violate, you know, in terms of the hdem. >> okay. >> they would offense, and they would, if they are arrested and they are a repeat offender, then they would certainly suffer the consequences. and as i am sure that the da will prosecute and that will
push for that prosecution, if in fact if they violate the offense and that is why the police officers are empowered like a police officer to make those arrest and our people work around the clock and making sure that there is compliance. and which is why we have such a strong compliance rates in 2013. and we will keep you posted on 2014 as the year progresses and concludes. >> so basically, it is individually not in compliance they go back into the jail. >> yeah. >> and you would get, you would get, i am sure even with the public defender, i think, con con census that we don't want to see any upset to a program that puts us all on the limb so that we do not disturb the confidence by the public in public safety. >> okay. >> thank you. >> supervisor mar, do you like to have a follow up? >> yeah, i wanted to thank the
chief deputy for giving us so much information about this and could you just explain a little bit and i know that it came up before and so is it an ankle bracelet that is the monitoring system and then what happens if you leave the geographical area, that you are supposed to be confined to. >> you blow up. no. >> and it is, and it is the opinions of on the jails and things like that, but for us, we use something that is not so, barbaric and something that is much more modernized that alert us electronically and to be able to determine where somebody is, like a gps.
well, no. that is the circumstances of the case and based on the case from the courts and what was adjudicated and if i were on the electronic monitoring it will be on my ankle and would it be on the outside of my pants or would it be under, could you cover it up so that... >> you have someone here that is on em. was. >> okay. >> and we are going to style for you. but, it is and you can put it under neating and i think that most do, some of them do it outside >> and then you had mentioned in, and since realignment in 2011, and in 2013, we had about 359. >> we did. >> electronic monitoring if we pass this policy, do you have
any estimates of how many more people will have this alternative? ? >> i am investing in the strengthening of our em unit. and more. >> very good. thank you. >> yeah. >> thank you. >> i know that i want to hear from the other city agencies. but, before we go on to our da. i would like to give our public defepder and our adult probation department an opportunities to say something. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning, supervisors, i am susan sange here on behalf of jeff, and he wanted to be here this morning but he is actually on vacation. so, i am here to express the public defender's support for the legislation proposed by the sheriff. and for some of the reasons that the sheriff just raised, including the fact that san francisco has a pretrial incarceration rate that is
higher than the national average and you have a grossly inproportion ate rate, and african americans, and it is important that we create safe alternatives to safe incarceration for the people who are charged with low level offenses who are waiting to exercise the constitutional rights, the individuals that are supposed to be presumed innocent don't langish in jail because they cannot afford the bail. to allow them to be on the electronic monitoring and that they can provide for their families and not be in danger of losing their housing or their jobs. and more importantly, this allows san francisco to